European technocracy on the horizon?

Brussels is still buzzing. After scoring points in the debate on the 2028–2034 Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF), the European Parliament is now dragging its feet when it comes to appointing rapporteurs on the substantive issues.

Last July, by unveiling a radically new budgetary architecture and concentrating programmes around a limited number of priorities, the European Commission has shaken up long-standing institutional dynamics. Within the European Council, traditionally organised around sectoral negotiations, the consolidation of flagship policies such as agriculture and cohesion now compels Ministers — often unaccustomed to such cross-cutting cooperation — to work together. The entire machinery of technical negotiations between Member States, the well-rehearsed methods, and the familiar choreography that unfolds every seven years around this major issue — one that conditions all others — must now adapt. The Danish Presidency of the Council acknowledges that discussions are limited, for now, to requests for clarification addressed to the Commission.

A similar upheaval is underway in the European Parliament, compounded by the fragmentation of political groups and the resulting fragility of majorities. The manoeuvring is not over. While four political families (PPE, Renew, S&D, Greens) have agreed to work together and endorsed a distribution of dossiers between the different parliamentary committees, key appointments and timelines have yet to be defined.

Finally, for all institutional stakeholders — including the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee — this mega-negotiation represents a major challenge. How does one choose battles and forge alliances when everything is so tightly interlinked?

In effect, three institutions are engaged in this negotiation, two of which are wasting valuable time, even though the budget is supposed to be finalised by the end of 2026, with 2027 dedicated to preparing programmes set to launch in January 2028. 

The result is a European Commission that emerges stronger than ever, increasingly resembling a “European technocratic ministry”. This trend was further illustrated on 10 December, when the Commission published its “Grid package “, a set of proposals aimed at accelerating the modernisation and deployment of Europe’s energy networks. In doing so, the Commission assumes the role of a network planner. While the need for better coordination is undeniable, who is best placed to put forward development scenarios? Who will challenge the assumptions underpinning these pathways? What governance framework will oversee such planning?

Is the Commission truly strengthening its position? Perhaps not. By seeking to coordinate ever more tightly at the highest level — while positioning itself as the sole integrator of markets and policies, the evaluator of national plans, and the guardian of economic stability — without offering robust and effective multi-level governance, is the Commission not, paradoxically, undermining its own authority by refusing to share it?